 This is a presentation of the evaluation of FAO's contribution to the Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus, often shortened to HDP. FAO made a corporate commitment to work to the Humanitarian Development HD Nexus at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, in line with FAO's mandate to ensure humanity's freedom from hunger. In 2018, FAO developed a corporate framework to support sustainable peace in the context of Agenda 2030 in response to the UN Secretary-General's call to all UN entities to regard sustaining peace as an important goal for all agencies and to integrate this into their strategic planning. The double nexus has since been replaced by the triple humanitarian development peace HDP Nexus. What is this HDP? The OECD DAC has produced one of the seminal texts on the topic, recommendation on the HDP Nexus providing a useful summary of the Nexus as prioritizing prevention, mediation and peace building, investing in development whenever possible while ensuring immediate humanitarian needs continue to be met. This is now a major commitment and paradigm shift in the wider aid sector. The HDP Nexus is not a new or different type of program. Instead, it is more of a mindset, a systematic way of thinking, encouraging new ways of working. It is mainly about multi-partner flexible and adaptive programming across the three pillars, humanitarian development and peace, anchored in sound context and conflict analysis. And it is people centered and inclusive in terms of understanding the needs and rights of the local people and communities. The evaluation set out to address three main questions, relevance of the HDP Nexus to FAO's mandate and work, the results of FAO's contributions in relation to the Nexus and organizational factors that have facilitated or constrained FAO to work in an integrated way in line with the Nexus. Six main conclusions emerged. First, that the HDP Nexus is highly relevant to FAO in its drive to end hunger, recognizing that development is not purely a technical process and common drivers of conflict relate directly to FAO's mandate, particularly around natural resources management. FAO has an important role to play in what is this evaluation terms as technical diplomacy, using its technical mandate as an entry point to build relationships between parties, to address common challenges such as pest management and promoting a rights-based approach to development, such as the right to food and land rights. Second, although there is evidence of more interdisciplinary thinking, there's still a long way to go. There is a need for greater commitment in FAO's humanitarian programming, which currently varies widely in scale between countries, unrelated to need. Although FAO has a long track record in managing conflict over natural resources, its corporate commitment to sustaining peace is relatively recent, resulting in positive examples such as strengthening context and conflict analysis, but much work still needs to be done to move beyond one-off good practice examples. Third, FAO's strategic positioning on the HDP Nexus at the New York City and Geneva levels has been undervalued. For example, in bringing FAO's knowledge on agricultural livelihoods into high-level discussions. At the global level, FAO has broadened its partnerships contributing to the HDP Nexus through a multi-stakeholder initiative such as the Global Network Against Food Crisis. These, however, often do not translate into strategic partnerships at the regional and country levels, which tend to be short-term and project-driven and overly focused on ministries of agriculture. There are fundamental weaknesses in the organization's fitness for purpose to work in highly politicized conflict environments and fragile states. FAO's in-country leadership in such environments is often inadequately supported in managing the relationships with government, which may be party to the conflict and an ongoing analysis of the political economy and conflict dynamics. In this, FAO compares unfavorably with its sister UN organizations. The inclusive, putting local people and actors at the center part of the HDP Nexus way of working is an opportunity for FAO to promote its participatory approaches. While FAO has a wealth of experience in this area, these currently tend to be fragmented and on a small scale. FAO's work on gender equity requires, at a minimum, mainstreaming gender in FAO's Contact and Conflict Analysis work. Finally, addressing some of FAO's well-known organizational constraints, being procedure-heavy and risk-averse, are critical to creating an enabling environment. The organizational culture needs to be driven less by internal procedures and compliance and more by a hunger for knowledge about context. To break down silos, dialogue across disciplines must be incentivized. This also means promoting programmatic funding models over short-term project fundings. Six main recommendations, along with a wide range of suggested actions emerge from the evaluation but with a main overarching message. FAO is ideally placed to invest in a major corporate effort to mainstream and adopt HDP Nexus ways of working as part of its organizational DNA. It needs to make a deliberate and informed use of approaches and practices such as technical diplomacy, information systems, and context analysis to inform conflict-sensitive programming, rights-based frameworks, and people-centered approaches to achieve inclusive and peace-sustaining results.